$116M Georgia Powerball winner claims prize

rdgrnr's avatar - walt

He walked into his boss's office and said they needed to pray.

I think everything's gonna work out good for this guy.

God bless him.

konane's avatar - wallace
In response to rdgrnr

I Agree!   Sounds as if he has his life totally together and will manage his newfound wealth well instead of money managing him.  He should be a good example of how-to for all lottery winners.  Congratulations and many blessings to him and his family!  Party

themagician's avatar - artificial intelligence-1.jpg

It says: he told his colleagues that he'd be gone for a long weekend..

Me too I will be gone for a looong weekend!


And, have you heard of the british person whon won 113£ Millions (Brisitsh pounds, I don't even know how many dollars that is!) with the last Friday Euromillion?


TnTicketlosers's avatar - Lottery-065.jpg

That is totally wonderful.I'd be happy to win a pick 3 in this sorry state.....wish I lived in an A+ state.

savagegoose's avatar - ProfilePho

if someone came into my office saying " we need to pray" id be thinking i shoulda gone for the kevlar jacket !

no seriusly , he sounds like he has planned for the win before hand and has things in pretty good order.

being a godless heathen myself  i dont see why all this praying is needed? i mean he already pulled the jackpot, whats he want now?

cope's avatar - usconstitution

So, the government stole (aka "taxed") nearly half of his winnings?


Just think how much more humanity would have benefited from the other 60 million he won if he would have received it?


Instead, the government will waste the 60 million in stupid entitlement programs to reward lazy people and reinforce their laziness.


Something is terribly wrong with this country.

In response to cope

Explains how well the so-called teaparty types are so informed. They can't read for themselves andcomprehend anything. The only mention of taxes in the article is"Render chose the cash option so he'll only be getting $63 millionbefore taxes." That's how the lottery works. You can take the fullamount over thirty years, or you can take the seed-money-only cashoption immediately. Will there be taxes? Yes. But if you're going tocomplain again about the taxes, at least get it right.


US Flag  From a True American Veteran that believes in the ACTUAL Constitution.


Somany believe he "has his life together" because he believes in animaginary friend? Ever consider THAT'S what is at least partly wrongwith this country? So many think their imaginary friend can "beat up"everyone else's imaginary friend. LOL!



Party Now for all the "love" of those "wonderful" christians out there who will now spew vitriolic hatred at me.  LOL!!!

Litebets27's avatar - power

Congratulations to the 46 year old executive, who will.."ONLY get $63million".

If someone calmly walked into my office and stated we needed to pray...I would immediately call security and 911.

Todd's avatar - Cylon 200.jpg
In response to ScubaGolfJim

I don't consider myself a "member" of the Tea Party movement, but I would consider myself a "Tea Party type", because I believe in smaller government and more individual freedom.  I do also think that I (and lots of other Tea-Party-like folks) are VERY well-informed.  I can also read for myself and comprehend things fairly well.  (If I do say so myself.)

I agree that the person you're quoting mis-understood the concept of the cash value, but taking that mistake and using it to slur all Tea Party-type people as basically stupid morons is unfair and a total non-sequitur.

cope's avatar - usconstitution

Tea Party people understand that regardless of what you earn (or win), you can expect the government to take nearly half of it.


If you don't have a problem with that, then you don't understand the United States Constitution or the reason this country was founded in the first place.

rdgrnr's avatar - walt
In response to ScubaGolfJim

The only vitriolic hatred I'm seeing spewed here is by you towards Christians and the Tea Party.

Better tune in to Keith Olbermann and drink another glass of his special Kool-Aid and calm down, dude.

You wouldn't happen to be angry about the turnout for the recent democrat/communist mini-march on Washington DC, would you?   ROFLGreen laughLOL


You can believe all you want in your ACTUAL Constitution (whatever that is), if you want to, where the government takes control of every aspect of your life.

I'll stick with the Constitution of the United States of America which explicitly limits the powers of the federal government.

If you're insecure and feel you need a nanny to run your life, you might want to try Cuba or North Korea.

Most of us here can take care of ourselves.

And we're going to make that perfectly, crystal clear next month.


BTW, I hear the Kim-Chee is excellent in Pyongyang this time of year. Stay away from the canine fare though unless you absolutely must have meat for protein to survive. Icky yukky poo poo.

visiondude's avatar - eye3logo

yes it was a devine blessing.

yes i am pumped this guy gives credit were credit is due (for him),  and that it rightfully appears that he will be a great steward of such a gift.   i really like that part of the story...

what does concern me,  is what pastor bronner stated in the article that ......."Bronner, who also is a pastor at the Ark of Salvation in Grant Park, explained that it was a service where participants were told to expect "unusual supernatural increase."

that statement for face value is dangerous,  in that it gives the false hope notion that mr render "received" such a blessing because he may have participated in that news years pronouncement,   and that is not true.

he surely wasn't the only one there,  and just by deduction,  he may have not been the "most likely" to win out of all the attendee's based on bronner's type of qualification.  (tithing, business affliation service,  church attendance, amount of "faith" / "belief",  positive confession consistentcy,  etc.)

what i am getting at,  is the false notion that you or i can achieve what bronner alludes to mr gender achieving via a "special meeting",  or something of that nature.

when i lived in georgia,  i watch pastor bronner occasionally,  but he fell to the prosperity side of teaching,  where you could "confess" things into existence,  and that isn't true.   and as i figured he would,  he alluded to it by insinuating that meeting most likely equated mr genders destination.

God can tell us pre event,  what He will do in and thru a persons life.  that part is true.   at times, He can do that thru another person.

what's not true,  is the notion that anyone of us can attend a special "prophectic meeting",  and somehow be guaranteed the same deal.

that's false hope,  and nothing more

actually,  more often than not,  God picks the unqualifiable, the weak, the "faithless" and the disobedient for things he does.

why?   because then God gets the credit,  instead of someone saying "I EARNED IT"....

we can thru obedience place ourselves in a sphere of trustworthiness as well

i think in terms of common sense,  and i wonder what other people think who attended that meeting that night,  who read that statement as to why it wasn't them.    pastor bronner has the burden of informing them their "faith" wasn't as strong,  otherwise it would have been them instaed of mr gender

relax.  if it's supposed to happen to you, it will. 

 if it ain't,  you can't go to enough "meetings",  nor can you buy enough tickets to make it happen

Diamon Life's avatar - yocco

I'm so insulted by you saying  "Kool-Aid" and all. Shame on you!!!! This is so not right and is very very insulting to all the hard working minorities and majorities of the U.S. You should be far more sensitive to the many struggling classes of people in the U.S.A who the very rich has taken advantage of and left with Golden Parachuts.  With out the minority the rich is nothing, respect us.

Todd's avatar - Cylon 200.jpg
In response to Diamon Life

By "Kool-Aid" he meant that some people will continue believing the current slate of politicians in power will "do some good" for them, no matter what evidence proves they are corrupt and are doing a horrendous job.  There are "Kool Aid drinkers" on both the left and the right in this country.

The notion that calling someone a "Kool-Aid drinker" is somehow against minorities is ludicrous.  It is a term that means someone will continue buying into a flawed and failed concept, no matter what.

There are people of every race and background in this country who are struggling.  I'm not sure "minority" is even going to be a valid term anymore, because EVERYONE will be a minority soon.

Last11Show page 9Page 10 of 11

Listen son, I can understand now why your daddy ain't got much use for you (not that he doesn't love you, I'm sure he does).

You know what? F* you.

Don't accuse me of lying either just so you can pretend to justify your ignorant, hateful attacks.

At least (in my wordiness) I actually attempt to express a thought beyond calling ing names and getting personal. But, I can understand how that is convenient for you. Pretend to be so above it that you don't even have to address it. Just talk down to it and call it names. Yeah, that's a more convincing game... You seem to be capable of little more than seeing how many insults you can fit in one sentence and have it still resemble a complete thought.

If you weren't such a partisan, hate-monger, maybe you'd realize the last 8 years weren't exactly peachy. Doesn't take a flaming liberal to realize that one.

And, I never said anything about Reagan being terrible. Merely pointed out how un-conservative he was when it came to government spending.


You are far gone, man. And, I'll be glad when ignorant hate-mongers like you fall by the way side. Pretending to "know someone's game" so you don't have to actually say anything other than nazi, commnist, whacko, liberal , blah, blah. You don't know , and you don't know me. 

There was obviously no point in trying to afford you any level of respect, or engaging in a dialog with you at all... you were right about that.

That work better for you? Guess I could have saved us both the trouble and called you an ignorant hillbilly, bigot, which is what I'm sure you've been waiting for... well you've pushed me to it :) You certainly act like a hateful, bigoted, prick.

I don't mean to embarrass you, you've done that yourself.

ditto... hypocrite.

rdgrnr's avatar - walt
In response to Jyna Log

Wow, when I tell you to stop being pretentious, you really follow orders!

Now we see the real jynalog!

Strategically speaking though, it was a bad move on your part.

But... you're young and have many elections in your future!

You're bound to become viable at some point, I'm sure.


Now we see the real jynalog!

That's the one I was waiting for... bravo... you picked up on it :)

I have no strategy. I merely attempted to engage in a dialog (obviously a mistake... but, then... I mistook you for being an outspoken member of the "most tolerant, well-informed, etc" group of people that I will ever meet. wherever would I have gotten that idea?). Though your strategy is clear... HATE. You are quite the master at it, sir.

Have fun in your little bubble of hate. You shall be happy to know that I leave this domain to you and your prolific hate-mongering.

rdgrnr's avatar - walt
In response to Jyna Log

The poor soul...

He was just too high strung is all...

Todd's avatar - Cylon 200.jpg

@Jyna Log:  The "problem" with everything you're saying, and the way you're saying it, is that you truly believe your viewpoint is "moderate" or "centrist".

I'd suggest you read a book called "Bias", written by Bernard Goldberg.  He is a former CBS newsman who describes in his book the mindset of the liberal media, and how (and why) it continues to exist that way.

The main thrust is that many -- perhaps most -- people in the mainstream media believe they are "centrist" or "moderate".  Through the prism of the people they associate with, perhaps they are relatively moderate.  But compared to the "average" US citizen, they are far left.

From the large amount of text you have written here, I believe you are probably in the same camp as these liberals who believe themselves to be moderate.  I have no doubt that you truly believe you are taking moderate, independent positions.  There is probably nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

The people you keep calling conservatives are not.  The Republicans who inhabited the Congress in the mid-2000s were not conservatives.  George Bush, while having many conservative principles, is not a conservative.  He is more of a moderate.  So if you believe the Congress of the mid 2000s and/or George Bush is conservative, maybe that's a good indication of your leftward political persuasion.  As a conservative, I think I'm in a pretty good position to know one when I see one.

Ronald Reagan was the last conservative president.  Another great example of a conservative is Paul Ryan.

Take a look at the following link:

See which positions you identify with, they are mostly accurate accountings of liberal and conservative positions.  (I would personally tweak the language of some of them, but they are very close.)


Hey, Todd... I actually don't identify as a moderate or a centrist... But, I also don't fall easily on one side of the line or not(perception acknowledged... but, it's an interesting point you raise. b/c for me, the perception is that anything left of extreme right often gets labeled as "too liberal", liberal, socialist, etc, etc). I think (in the current climate) many of these labels (conservative, liberal, etc) are counter-productive. b/c it seems to do little more than allow people to label someone as "x" and then shut out anything they have to say. It tends to discourage discourse and common ground in present day climate. People are more concerned about what to call themselves (or others), than they are really looking at the issues

On social issues, I would identify primarily as liberal, however, and I'll make no apologies for saying that if gay people want to get married, it has no impact on me, and that the only argument against it that I have ever heard put forth is a religious moral one... And, that the government should have no role in that beyond the fact that two people are entering into a legally binding contract. That to me, though... is actually kind of "conservative"... keeping the government out of things it doesn't really belong in, in the first place. B/c when they do involve themselves in it, they tend to do silly things (like having a standing law in the constitution until the year 2000 that forbid interracial marriage in my previous state of residence). While the notion that one would support gay marriage may come across as "quacky liberal viewpoint", the movement to apply government resources towards enacting and enforcing what ultimately amounts to a "moral law" seems highly un-conservative, but was a big part of the 2004 get out the vote conservative movement.

I agree with you that those presidents were not "conservative", but they are still primarily identified as such, and conservatives voted for them. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on what made Ronald Reagan a "conservative" in the true sense of the word, in your opinion. I cited government spending during his tenure, as well as the EIC, neither of which (to me) identify as conservative... the latter of which being more accurately identified as "socialist" under the current political "lexicon". I'd also dare to suggest that the whole "war on drugs" of the Reagan era was NOT conservative. It has been a massive government undertaking, both in terms of the use of government resources, and the use of tax payer dollars to fund it, etc. While on the flip side, our television pumps out billions of dollars in ads each year selling us the next new wonder drug approved by the FDA, which is funded by the very companies whose drugs they approve.

anyways. I know some of my views would make some people think I'm too "republican" depending on the topic. Others will have me perceived as a flaming liberal. And, others still (my views on the role and function of religion in present day society for example) would have even most "liberals" plugging their ears :) That's fine... whatever... I don't need to defend myself against name-callers. Only my ideas, and only to be open to other (thoughtfully expressed) ideas.

rdgrnr's avatar - walt
In response to Jyna Log

"I know some of my views would make some people think I'm too "republican"


God help us.


I'm done talking to you... go forth and spread your hate. I've had enough of a dose...

rdgrnr's avatar - walt
In response to Jyna Log

The poor soul...

He was just too high strung is all...



Todd's avatar - Cylon 200.jpg
In response to Jyna Log

If you're in your 30s then I'm sure you were too young at the time Reagan was president to remember much.  If you would attribute high spending to Reagan, then you're definitely listening to the wrong people.  Reagan accomplished everything he did with Democrats in charge of the Congress the entire time.  It was an amazing demonstration of true leadership.  Can you imagine Obama pulling something like that off?  He couldn't even do it with his own party controlling Congress with a filibuster-proof majority. 

In order to make it work, Reagan had to make some compromises - particularly with spending, and particularly in his second term, when the economy was humming again.  After all, it is impossible for liberals to see new revenue coming in without inventing new ways to spend it.

Reagan also did everything he did (revive the dead economy, make people proud of this country again, defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War, etc) without the benefit of the Internet to get his message out, without any non-liberal (biased) media outlets, without e-mail, etc.  When he was in a press conference he was grilled like George W Bush used to get grilled -- with every intent to embarrass him, and no intent to explore the truth of any subject.  Sam Donaldson was one of the biggest jerks doing that, and Helen Thomas was still considered a "journalist" back then.

Just to be clear, you're NOT too Republican, but I must say it sounds like in comparison to the folks you hang out with, you may come off that way.  In other words, if a liberal is standing next to a progressive, I guess the liberal could be considered "moderate" or "non-partisan", or whatever other code words you decide to use there.  But it doesn't make them so, it just means they have some fringe friends.

And OF COURSE a conservative would vote for George W Bush or his dad.  What, would we want John Kerry, Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis in there?  Heck, I even held my nose and voted for Dole when he ran against Clinton.  What do you think a conservative should do in that case?  Not vote?  How unpatriotic would that be?  Don't you consider it your duty to vote?  I sure do.

rdgrnr's avatar - walt
In response to rdgrnr

The sad thing is I think I could have helped him.


Can you imagine Obama pulling something like that off?  He couldn't even do it with his own party controlling Congress with a filibuster-proof majority. 

Actually, I think it will be interesting to see what will happen. That is typically when the most (albeit still very little) actually gets done. When there is a better balance. What I've witnessed over the last two years was one political party practically requiring a 60 vote filabuster proof majority, b/c nearly every piece of legislation was blocked without it. There has been an awful lot of resistance, and not a lot of action or new ideas to attempt to address our biggest problems. Come November 2nd, that won't fly anymore. Republican's will be in charge, and they will have to make compromises too. not just be a party of resistance. If they continue doing what they've been doing once they re-gain control, then control will swap again.... and we'll rinse and repeat, again, and again... different teams in the lead... same old story.

Don't you consider it your duty to vote?  I sure do.

I do, though I have some pretty serious fundamental issues with the electoral process and framework in this country. Which, I also consider to be a fundamental flaw in our system that contributes to many of the other problems we have with the way our government functions. 

Having said that, you've got to be something really special this election season for me to not write-in "NONE OF THE ABOVE". Now, some may consider that me throwing away my vote. I consider it to be exercising my right to vote in the purest sense of the word, by expressing my distaste with the state of affairs in the political world, as well as with the electoral process in general. maybe if more people wrote in none of the above on election day, Republican's and Democrats might begin to realize that the same ole way of doing things isn't going to fly anymore with the public consciousness. As it stands, the majority of the voting public is firmly on one side of a party line or another, and the rest sway back and forth giving justification by saying they've "voted for the lesser of two evils"... well, I'll choose none of the above instead. I don't buy into the whole, I'm voting for the guy who is less bad argument. That (in my opinion) just helps to illustrate how terribly flawed our electoral process is, and how bad the people in charge really are.

The level of maturity these days on capitol hill is akin to reading "youtube comments'.


rdgrnr's avatar - walt
In response to Jyna Log

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

Yeah jyn-jyn, all the Conservatives here are gonna run out and write in "None of the above" with you now.

Because you've made your case so well and we all honestly believe that you're really gonna do that rather than vote straight democrat.

jyn-jyn, for the love of GOD! Do you know how silly you look?


"I have some pretty serious issues with the electoral process..." 

Uh, yeah, you and George Soros both. What a shocker!


"Republican's will be in charge, and they will have to make compromises too."

Make compromises too?  What the hell does that mean - too?  The democrats never compromised. They owned all three branches and told the Republicans to take a hike. NOW  you want to start compromising? Ha ha ha. Why the hell should the Republicans start compromising now? Just the other day Obama said Republicans have to ride in the back of the bus. That's his "One America" he talked about in his campaign, I guess. He's a liar just like you.


The truth is, jyn-jyn, you don't even have a wife and kids like you said. You're a liberal, gay activist (not that there's anything wrong with that) and not a very good one.  You really need to work on your cover story.  I can read you like a book, jyn-jyn. You're a short story and an easy read.

I'm actually embarrassed for you being caught in your lies but I truly wish you the best.

How about we just talk lottery from now on and become friends?


You are an idiot, and just b/c you pretend to know me better than myself, doesn't make the crap you spew about me true.

keep on attacking. you are good at it. Keep on perfectly illustrating my point that you are little more than someone who has to attack people, and try to defame the person, b/c you are incapable of anything more. intellectually dishonest punk that you are.

This is getting ridiculous... i'm being told by some stranger that I am a liar, don't have kids, am gay, etc, etc? and this is acceptable behavior? there is nothing else to say to you than F* you... you are an of the greatest magnitude. 


You can't read sh* , you ignorant hateful fool. I can't believe they let you get away with this bull here....

Welcome Guest

Your last visit: Sun, Oct 24, 2021, 4:47 pm

Log In

Log InCancel

Forgot your username?

Forgot your password?